Supreme Court's March 20 judgment the provision of mandatory arrest under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act The judgment had led to nation-wide agitation by Dalits and tribals resulting in loss of several lives The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear the Centre's plea seeking review of its March 20 judgment, which did away with the provision of mandatory arrest under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The SC judgment diluting the arrest provision had led to nation-wide agitation by Dalits and tribals resulting in loss of several lives. In its review petition, the Centre had said a bench of Justices A K Goel and U U Lalit had erred by taking into account high incidence of acquittals in cases lodged under the Act to arrive at a conclusion that arrest provision of the law was being misused through frivolous complaints. Appearing before a bench headed by Justice Goel, attorney general K K Venugopal said the Centre had filed its written submissions in the case and it was ripe for consideration. The bench agreed for an urgent hearing and posted it for May 3. The AG informed the court that four states had separately filed petitions seeking review of the March 20 judgment. The Centre had said, "The facts and data demonstrate weak implementation of the Act. This could not lead to dilution of the statutory deterrent punishment to allow accused get bail and terrorise Dalit and tribal victims and witnesses to deter them from proceeding with their complaints against accused. "Since offences of atrocities affect dignity and life of members of SC and ST community, FIR needs to be registered immediately so that the investigation commences fast without any room for accused to seek anticipatory bail and that admissible relief due to be paid to the victim/dependent on registration of FIR is given timely." The Centre said it amended the Act in 2016 to allow compensation ranging between Rs 85,000 and Rs 8.5 lakh to victims of atrocities. The Centre also cited the SC's 1995 judgment in Ram Kishan Balothia case in which it had said, "Looking at the historical background relating to the practice of untouchability and the social attitude which lead to the commission of such offences against SCs/STs, there is a justification of an apprehension that if benefit of anticipatory bail is made available to persons who are alleged to have committed such offences, there is every likelihood of their misusing their liberty while on anticipatory bail to terrorise their victims and to prevent proper investigation."